Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

Author: Bas Hamstra

Date: 17:15:47 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 20, 2002 at 14:53:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On November 20, 2002 at 11:52:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>My very first thought after looking through this was:
>>'You note that Heinz R=2/3 appears to be superior to
>>R=2 and R=3, but you don't include it in the comparison.'
>I would disagree with such a conclusion anyway. R=3 always
>works better for me in the year 2002 :)
>In 1996 just R=2 was ok. In 1997 i used a combination of R=3 and R=2,
>and in 2002 such a combination is not possible. R=3 gives me a ply
>extra compared to a combination of R=3 + R=2. *on average*.

For me R=2/3 is superior to R=2 and R=3. The biggest problem with R=3 for me, is
that it makes my search unstable. Some positions it even solves slower. Others
it searches deeper but misses the right move.


This page took 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.